Not upheld: Goods and services under S75 complaint against Secure Trust Bank Public Limited Company (trading as V12 Retail Finance)

Decision detail

Summary

Mr L purchased bedroom furniture funded by a V12 fixed sum loan in November 2021 and subsequently claimed the slatted base (with 8.3cm slat width) was unfit for purpose because it was incompatible with standard UK spring mattresses. After the retailer declined his claim, Mr L requested V12 raise a Section 75 CCA claim for breach of contract or misrepresentation. V12 declined the claim, relying partly on a prior FHI Ombudsman decision that found no evidence the bedframe was faulty or unfit for purpose. The ombudsman upheld V12's decision, finding no misrepresentation at point of sale and that the issue was one of mattress compatibility rather than a bedframe defect, with suitable alternative mattresses available in the market.

The Ombudsman's reasoning

The ombudsman concluded that V12 acted fairly in declining the Section 75 CCA claim because: (1) there was no evidence the bedframe was advertised or sold as anything other than having 8.3cm slat width; (2) no misrepresentation occurred at point of sale as no discussion about suitable mattresses took place; (3) the FHI Ombudsman, as an equivalent dispute resolution service, had already considered the same evidence and legislation and concluded the bedframe was not faulty or unfit for purpose; (4) the issue related to compatibility between the mattress and bedframe rather than a defect in the bedframe itself; and (5) evidence showed suitable mattresses were available for beds with 8.3cm slat widths.

How this compares

Source

Read the original decision on the Financial Ombudsman Service website